Carl W. Kenney II is an award winning columnist and novelist. He is committed to engaging readers into a meaningful discussion related to matters that impact faith and society. He grapples with pondering the impact faith has on public space while seeking to understand how public space both hinders and enhances the walk of faith.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Now the hard part begins.Black America has to contend with what we know
to be true.

We know that look of disdain that keeps many at a safe
distance.We know the look of judgment
when all we seek is to purchase a bag of Skittles.

We’re not surprised by the verdict to acquit George
Zimmerman.We saw it coming.We know the elaborate ploys to protect the
interest of those invested in keeping black men in their proper place.The hard part is not in hearing the verdict,
but in listening to commentary aimed at convincing us it’s not about race.

We’re forced to listen to ceaseless narrative that
will blame prosecutors for failing to prove their case.The trial will be taken apart, piece by
piece, in hope of persuading us it was a lack of evidence rather than race that
freed Zimmerman.We’re
expected to concede the errors of prosecution while ending the racial pontificating
at the root of the story.

Are we to approve the summation of legal expert’s
intent on deflating the angst that has black parents afraid to allow their boys
to walk alone at night?Are we to refute
the mounting evidence of rulings that discredits the value of black life taken
by a person who makes a judgment before saying hello?

Should we accept the notion that prosecutors failed to
prove their case, or should we question assumptions surrounding the evidence?

What is implied in jurors rejecting a lesser verdict
of manslaughter?Should we decry the
suggestion that Zimmerman acted in a reasonable way to protect his own life
when the evidence proves he put himself in danger by following Martin?Shouldn’t he be punished for racial profiling
and failing to honor the recommendation of the 911 dispatcher?

This case rationalizes racial profiling.In claiming the absolute innocence of
Zimmerman, the jury has added muscle to those who presume guilt based on a
profile.That position is rooted in
racism, yet we are asked to discount its significance in Martin’s death

A mostly white jury believed Zimmerman had the right
to defend himself because he was afraid.That fear didn’t prevent him from stalking Martin.He had a gun.He was trained to use that gun.Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman’s harassing
of Martin was enough to trigger Martin’s fear; however, the jury brought into
Zimmerman’s fear.

Why wouldn’t they? Most people fear black men.Accepting Zimmerman’s argument of fear played
into conceptions of race.

The jury downplayed Zimmerman’s pattern of “profiling”.
Prosecutors played five calls to police made months before the shooting.The phone calls made to the dispatcher that
night wasn’t enough to prove “profiling” and “ill-will”.

“These a------ always get away,” Zimmerman said
followed by, according to prosecutors, Zimmerman muttering “f----- punks” under
his breath.

His comments assumed guilt.Those words suggested intent, but the evidence
was not enough.Why?

Maybe the jurors view Zimmerman as a hero for
protecting people from the “f ------- punks”.Maybe the jury agrees with his assessment – they always get away.Who are they?

Isn’t that a position based on a racial stereotype? If
so, isn’t this about race?

Isn’t it troubling that the age of Trayvon was
disregarded? Shouldn’t we consider the youth and innocence when discussing the
matter of fear? Rachel Jeantel, 18, was on the phone with Trayvon at the time
of the shooting. Trayvon told her he was being followed.

Trayvon told her of a “creepy-ass cracker” was watching
him as he walked home from the convenience store. She heard Zimmerman angrily
demand to know what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood.She heard a bump – the sound of Trayvon’s
cell phone headset hitting the ground.

She heard Trayvon’s voice: “Get off! Get off!”

Isn’t that enough to prove aggression?

She’s only 18.Legal experts say she was not polished or articulate.Her testimony never changed, yet we are told
to discredit her testimony because it failed to impress.Isn’t the unwillingness to concede her
testimony rooted in notions regarding race? Has her testimony been minimized by
those who make judgments of black people?

The jury was asked to
rule based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.The law eliminates a citizen’s “duty to retreat” before using lethal
force.We are asked to buy into the argument
that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was at risk while all the evidence
suggests the opposite claim.

Lead Detective Chris Serino refuted Zimmerman claim
that he never “followed” Trayvon. Zimmerman’s statement to the police was full
of inconsistences, a point that failed to sway the jury.What is implied by their decision not to
consider those discrepancies when weighed against other testimonies?

What about the 911 call made by the neighbor near the
scene? Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s mother, and Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon’s older
brother, identified the voice on the recording as Trayvon.

The defense called eight witnesses who claimed the
voice was Zimmerman’s, including his mother.In the end, it came down to who the jury believed – the mother and
brother of Trayvon or the friends and family of the man who, according to the
evidence, chased the 17-year-old while assuming his guilt.

The judge’s decision not to allow the testimony of an
audio expert may have decided the case.The expert was ready to testify that the voice on the tape is Trayvon
Martin.

How should we feel about that exclusion of evidence?

What about the sound of the wind on Zimmerman’s call
to police, suggesting he was chasing Trayvon? The defense claimed Martin was
the aggressor, but all the evidence says otherwise.That is for those capable of seeing how
evidence can be tainted by those who bring their own notions of race to the
case. The fact that Zimmerman may have been beaten by Martin doesn’t negate the truth
related to Zimmerman’s aggression.It
merely proves that he approached the wrong person and took his beating
poorly.He pulled the trigger to end the
beating.

At issue is who won the fight.Shouldn’t the question be who started it and
why?

Zimmerman was the aggressor with a gun.Martin was on the phone when approached. Martin
had no way of knowing Zimmerman’s intent.He defended himself. He may have won the fight, but Zimmerman pulled the
trigger.

Help me understand how this is not about race.

This is about the right to kill a black man after you
start a fight and find yourself on the bad side of that decision.This is about validating racial profiling.This is about affirming the fear of a black
teen when there is nothing to fear.

This is not about the law. It’s about the application of
that law from the position of white fear.The defense team used that fear to convince the jury Zimmerman had the right
to kill.

What is the lesson?Don’t assume I’m up to no good.In your mind, I may look like a criminal. In my mind you look like a
person looking for a fight.

2 comments:

This is exactly what I have considered in regards to the verdict. It seems clear that there is important excluded evidence, the circumstances surrounding the trial and an implication of bias/racial profiling obvious to the public following the trial.

It feels good to read what you have written here. I have seen many innocent young black men accused, threatened, thrown against police cars. and I have been with them after this has happened and tried to offer comfort and reassurance. In our culture Black young men need to be protected.

Total Pageviews

Carl W. Kenney II

Carl was named the best serious columnist of 2011 by the North Carolina Press Association for his work with the News & Observer's community paper The Durham News and in 2016 by the Missouri Press Association for his columns in the Columbia Missourian. He is a columnist with the News & Observer and Co-Executive Producer of "God of the Oppressed" an upcoming documentary film on black liberation theology. He is a former Adjunct Professor at the University of Missouri - School of Journalism and Adjunct Instructor at Duke University, the Center for Documentary Studies. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He furthered his education at Duke University and attained a Master of Divinity. He was named a Fellow in Pastoral Leadership Development at the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 14, 2005. He is a freelance writer with his commentary appearing in The Washington Post, Religious News Services,The Independent Weekly and The Durham Herald-Sun. Carl is the author of two novels: “Preacha’ Man” and the sequel “Backslide”.
He has led congregations in Missouri and North Carolina